Sylvester wrote:What seems to be common to these 3 suttas' discussion of the stationing of consciousness (viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā) is not that such ṭhitiyā is unskilfull per se. Rather, the ārammaṇa (basis) for patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa comes into existence only when viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā is accompanied by either -

(i) upayo (clinging to the Aggregates) per Upaya Sutta, and Bija Sutta, or(ii) nimittassādagathitaṃ (fettered to gratification in the nimitta) or anubyañjanassādagathitaṃ (fettered to gratification in the features) per SN 35.235.

IMHO, this is very well described by the similes of the seed in the Bija sutta and Pathamabhava sutta. Consciousness, being established, is like a seed in the field. It may lay there dormant for years. Watered with craving, it proliferates and grows.

Similarly, identification with something may stay latent for centuries, until it ripens into some unskillful act.

A temporary solition would be to leave these seeds without nutriment. However suttas state unequivocally that the full removal of defilements mean making consciousness unstationed:

If fact, as you point out, SN 35.235's promise that contemplation of impermanence etc in place of the abovesaid 2 fetters leads to nibbidā (disenchantment). I don't think that with nibbidā, there can be a consciousness that is unstationed, at least not in the strict technical sense.

With nibbidā, consciousness still cognizes, being without fixation or station.

It's hard to imagine a perception without any self-identification, but this is possible.

Sylvester wrote:What seems to be common to these 3 suttas' discussion of the stationing of consciousness (viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā) is not that such ṭhitiyā is unskilfull per se. Rather, the ārammaṇa (basis) for patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa comes into existence only when viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā is accompanied by either -

(i) upayo (clinging to the Aggregates) per Upaya Sutta, and Bija Sutta, or(ii) nimittassādagathitaṃ (fettered to gratification in the nimitta) or anubyañjanassādagathitaṃ (fettered to gratification in the features) per SN 35.235.

IMHO, this is very well described by the similes of the seed in the Bija sutta and Pathamabhava sutta. Consciousness, being established, is like a seed in the field. It may lay there dormant for years. Watered with craving, it proliferates and grows.

I like this explanation a lot. The seed/bija was probably the best or only word available then to the Buddha and his listeners to denote the "potential" created by establishment. I wonder if instead of "establishment", we should elect a more idiomatic translation of patiṭṭhā as seeding and patiṭṭha / patiṭṭhita as seeded? But this creates in itself other interpretation problems, a la Sarvastivadin future-existent dharmas...

It suddenly makes sense why the Pali version in MN 117 has a discussion of factors without effluents (anāsavā).

Interesting. Would you explain why?

I have to thread carefully here, since the Pali section is nestled within the Classical Mahavihara Theravada section. I did not realise I might have breached the relevant Guidelines by this post -

I would translate the above differently from Ven Thanissaro, substituting all occurences of "that" with "which", since the Pali syntax indicates a nexus, rather than a junction, between āsavā and the qualities. This would imply that each and every āsava will exhibit all of the above functions. Specifically, I zoom in on "ponobhavikā", ie āsavas lead to punabbhava/rebecoming.

SN 35.235's instruction on yoniso manasikāra is contrasted against the grasping of the sign/features of the various objects of consciousness. In such cases of contrast, the suttas generally intend to pit the effects/consequences against one another as well. In SN 35.235, the consequence of nimittassādagathita and anubyañjanassādagathita is establishment in the hīnadhātu. The foil to this, presented by yoniso manasikāra, should imply the opposite would be no-establishment and no-punabbhava. If there is no punabbhava, I think it would be a safe inference that there was no āsava at that time, based on how MN 36 links āsavas to punabbhava.

MN 149 says very much the same thing, but focussing on craving as ponobhavikā, instead of the effluents. There, it says that clear seeing leads to the 5 Aggregates associated with clinging going to apacaya/diminution, instead of upacaya/accumulation. This also suggests that yoniso manasikāra leads away from punabbhava.

Having just read the helpful posts on Wise Attention and Sense Restraint in the other section, it occurred to me that there could perhaps be a little more said about SN 35.235's yoniso manasikāra, nimittassādagathita and anubyañjanassādagathita.

In the standard pericope on sense restraint, eg DN 2 and MN 27, we find this formula -

[And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses?] On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. ... This is how a monk guards the doors of his senses.etc etc.

Here, we see a variation of the theme of being fettered to the gratification in the nimitta or the anubyañjana discussed in SN 35.235. Interestingly, the sense restraint pericope goes beyond gratification/assāda and discusses just gāhī, a taking up of both gratifying and unpleasant signs. It seems pleasant signs give rise to sukkha, and this typically triggers rāgānusaya (the latent tendency to lust), while unpleasant signs give rise to dukkha, which generally triggers paṭighānusaya (the latent tendency to aversion) (MN 44). These 2 anusayā would be represented by the terms abhijjhā and domanassā (SN 36.6)

Here's the interesting part that ties back to SN 12.38 and SN 12.39. The sense restraint pericope implies that if a person is established in sense restraint, he/she would be untroubled by either rāgānusaya or paṭighānusaya. In SN 12.38/39, we see this proposition -

But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness.

Anuseti is the denominative verb from anusaya, so the proposition above refers to a person who does not anuseti = the anusayas are absent then. Does it look like SN 12.38 is saying that the anusayas as condition/paccaya for punabbhava is cut off by wise attention and sense restraint? Or should avijjānusaya be inferred to linger, being eradicated only with purification of view?

From MN 2-

When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

I think the gāhī in the sense restraint pericope is synonymous with the upaya in Upaya Sutta previously discussed. I think this suggests that while an Arahant's consciousness may be stationed/tiṭṭhita on an object, it is anupayo.

Whoops! I just discovered a major mistake in my reading of SN 12.38's ṭhitiyā (as in viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā). I had wrongly identified ṭhitiyā as the noun connected to the verbs tiṭṭhamāna and tiṭṭheyya in the Upaya Sutta, Bija Sutta and Adittapariyaya Sutta. It is not connected at all.

In fact, ṭhitiyā is the noun meaning "maintenance", as in kāyassa ṭhitiyā (in the injunctions that food is merely for the maintenance of the body)

The Commentary explains -

Viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā'ti kammaviññāṇassa ṭhitatthaṃ

Looks like BB's translation of SN 12.38 is better than Ven Thanissaro's.

Sylvester wrote:Here's the interesting part that ties back to SN 12.38 and SN 12.39. The sense restraint pericope implies that if a person is established in sense restraint, he/she would be untroubled by either rāgānusaya or paṭighānusaya.

Well, let's investigate some examples so that we won't get too far in the theory.

Say, a man is given to sexual lust. Accordingly, he has 'raganusaya'. When seeing something which resembles a woman, he would tend to get a perceptual image (nimitta) of an attractive woman. This would remind him of sukha, and switch on the passion.

So the restraint, preventing the taking up of such perceptual images (nimitta), would prevent the blooming of passion. However the underlying tendencies may still remain for a long time. That's why further steps, such as samadhi and panna development, are necessary. Ādittapariyāyasuttaṃ (SN 35.235) describes the development of wisdom through the seven types of sanna ( viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2834#p40805 ).

In SN 12.38/39, we see this proposition -

But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness.

This evidently refers first of all to the link between sankhara and vinnana in the Conditioned Arising.

Anuseti is the denominative verb from anusaya, so the proposition above refers to a person who does not anuseti = the anusayas are absent then. Does it look like SN 12.38 is saying that the anusayas as condition/paccaya for punabbhava is cut off by wise attention and sense restraint? Or should avijjānusaya be inferred to linger, being eradicated only with purification of view?

Anusayas are removed by the Eightfold path. When there's no more anusayas, there's no more bases (arammana) for the stationing of consciousness, it is appatittha, and there's no more rebirth.

From MN 2-

When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

A great quote. Appropriate attention spans all parts of the Path - virtue, concentration and wisdom. 'Leaks' (asava) are abandoned one by one, from the gross ones to the subtle.

Seems like unglueing a piece of modelling clay from the table. First we get a small ball of clay together, and gradually unite into it all the clay. We roll this ball away from the places where it will stick, using it just to collect the stuck clay. Then, when all the clay is united into a single ball, we can lift it altogether from the table.

I think the gāhī in the sense restraint pericope is synonymous with the upaya in Upaya Sutta previously discussed. I think this suggests that while an Arahant's consciousness may be stationed/tiṭṭhita on an object, it is anupayo.

Well, that's an old error of the Pali-English dictionary. 'Gaṇhāti', in the context of perception, means just 'apprehends', without any 'grasping' connotation.

Last edited by Dmytro on Wed May 30, 2012 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dmytro wrote:Well, let's investigate some examples so that we won't get too far in the theory.

Say, a man is given to sexual lust. Accordingly, he has 'raganusaya'. When seeing something which resembles a woman, he would tend to get a perceptual image (nimitta) of an attractive woman. This would remind him of sukha, and switch on the passion.

So the restraint, preventing the taking up of such perceptual images (nimitta), would prevent the blooming of passion. However the underlying tendencies may still remain for a long time.

I believe that would be how the Commentary to MN 44 explains it, linking the absence of specific anusayas to specific path moments of either Non-Return or Arahatta. At least that is how it seems to me to be how the Commentaries interpret "tena pajahatī" and "na tattha rāgānusayo anusetī". This being in the Classical Mahavihara section, I'll leave my own views on "Na kho ... sabbāya sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayo anuseti" (No, the latent tendency to lust does not lie with all pleasant feelings) at the doorstep. However, I would agree with you that when lust has been triggered, rāgānusaya has been activated.

I think the gāhī in the sense restraint pericope is synonymous with the upaya in Upaya Sutta previously discussed. I think this suggests that while an Arahant's consciousness may be stationed/tiṭṭhita on an object, it is anupayo.

Well, that's an old error of the Pali-English dictionary. 'Gahnati', in the context of perception, means just 'apprehends', without any 'grasping' connotation.

This is interesting. May I trouble you to elaborate? I've not been able to locate the present tense of the verb, from what looks like the past participle gāhī .

I think the gāhī in the sense restraint pericope is synonymous with the upaya in Upaya Sutta previously discussed. I think this suggests that while an Arahant's consciousness may be stationed/tiṭṭhita on an object, it is anupayo.

Well, that's an old error of the Pali-English dictionary. 'Gaṇhāti', in the context of perception, means just 'apprehends', without any 'grasping' connotation.

This is interesting. May I trouble you to elaborate? I've not been able to locate the present tense of the verb, from what looks like the past participle gāhī .